Smt. Kajal Chandrakar Vs Sagar Ram Chandrakar

1 - Smt. Kajal Chandrakar Wife Of Shri Sagar Ram Chandrakar, Aged About 24 Years R/o- Behind Laxmi Medical, Santoshi Nagar, Durga Para, Raipur, P.S. Tikarapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) Presently Resident At - C/o Father Bisahat Chandrakar, Mother Usha Chandrakar, Durga Para Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, Police Station Tikarapara, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Sagar Ram Chandrakar Son Of Shri Manoj Kumar Chandrakar, Aged About 30 Years R/o- Shivaji Nagar, Shishu Park, Ward No. 51, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate.

¶14

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

13/07/2026

¶17

The petitioner/wife has filed the present petition under Section 24

¶18

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), seeking

¶19

2

¶20

transfer of Civil Suit No.1029/2025 ( Sagar Ram Chandrakar vs. Smt. Kajal Chandrakar ), pending before the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg, to the learned Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (CG).

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 17.02.2024 as per the Hindu rituals and customs. She further submits that after about seven to eight months of marriage, the parties are unable to develop mutual understanding, resulting in matrimonial disputes. Consequently, the petitioner is presently residing along with her parents at Raipur. She further submitted that the respondent/husband has filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1-क) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth referred to as the ‘Act, 1955’), which is registered as Civil Suit No.1029/2025 and is pending before the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (CG). Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner/wife has filed an application under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2005”), against the respondent/husband and his family members before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur. The said application has been assigned Filing No.38886/2026; however, it has not yet been registered as a case. It is further submitted that the distance between Raipur and Durg is about 90 km (to and fro). Although,

¶22

3

¶23

direct bus and train connectivity is available between the two places, the petitioner’s parents are elderly, and she is required to look after them. Therefore, it would be difficult for her to travel such a long distance on every date of hearing. Hence, it is prayed that Civil Suit No.1029/2025 filed by respondent/husband be transferred from the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (CG) to the Family Court, Raipur (CG).

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that the distance between Raipur and Durg is only about 90 km (to and fro), and there is direct train as well as bus connectivity between the two places. He further submits that the respondent/husband is willing to bear the travel expenses of the petitioner/wife. Therefore, he prays that the present transfer petition may be dismissed.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully.

¶26

Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 held at para 9 which reads as under:-

¶27

" 9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take

¶28

4

¶29

into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

¶30

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay and another reported in 2001 10 SCC 41 has observed that if husband files suit against wife, then convenience of wife must be looked into. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Versus Kishore Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.

¶31

Admittedly, the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband is pending before the Third Additional, Principal Judge Family Court, Durg. It is also not in dispute that proceedings initiated by the petitioner/wife under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act, 2005 are already pending against the respondent/husband before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur. It is further not disputed that the distance between Raipur and Durg is about 90 km (to and fro). As stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner’s parents are elderly and

¶32

5

¶33

are unable to accompany her to Durg. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that if Civil Suit No.1029/2025 filed by respondent/husband is not transferred from the Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, to the Family Court, Raipur, then it would be inconvenient for the petitioner/wife to attend proceedings before the Family Court at Durg.

¶34

Further, in view of the principles laid down in the aforecited case laws of Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife's convenience must be looked into, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is fit one for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for.

¶35

Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed . It is ordered that the Civil Suit No.1029/2025 { Sagar Ram Chandrakar vs. Smt. Kajal Chandrakar } pending before the Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg (CG), be transferred to the Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. The Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg (CG) is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid Civil Suit No.1029/2025 to the Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (CG), within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/submission of a copy of this order.

¶36

It is further directed that after receiving the case on transfer, the Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) shall consider and decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a further

¶37

6

¶38

period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from the transferring Court. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Raipur on 06^th August, 2026 and to cooperate with the concerned Family Court for early disposal of the case.

¶39

It is further observed that if the personal appearance of the respondent/husband is not required, the concerned Family Court may permit him to appear through video conferencing.

¶40

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶43

Rukhsar

Smt. Kajal Chandrakar v. Sagar Ram Chandrakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kajal Chandrakar v. Sagar Ram Chandrakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Manisha Mirche Vs Vijay Kumar Mirche

Narayan Prasad Pandey Vs Dr. K. v. Rao

Awadh Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivram Agrawal Vs Rakesh Kumar Agrawal

Manohar Lal Tiwari Vs Ramesh Khandey